Is 3E losing traction in the D&D community?

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:17 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:
11. Overzealous fantards caused by fracturing the fanbase via moneygrab. Ridiculous apologetics, as seen by people
I'm not sure that this issue is at all specific to 4e.

I would go so far as to say it is a near-universal problem of RPG systems, especially in internet discussions.

Actually, I think it might be a universal problem of internet discussions about anything of which there is more than one version.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:17 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:
11. Overzealous fantards caused by fracturing the fanbase via moneygrab. Ridiculous apologetics, as seen by people
I'm not sure that this issue is at all specific to 4e.

I would go so far as to say it is a near-universal problem of RPG systems, especially in internet discussions.

There are people that do that to everything. It is far more common in things that are legitimately bad and therefore require delusions to advocate. It is also far more common in things that are legitimately contradictive and incomprehensible. Start comparing 4.Fail fanatics to religious fanatics. You will find striking parallels between those who say that a terrible system is good, and those that say that a sociopathic stalker deity is a good guy.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:36 pm

Psychic Robot wrote: ("Nine pages of errata within three months is a sign of professionalism!")

Odd. My biggest complaint with 4E is that they didn't errata enough.

The orb wizard is still broken beyond belief. Demigod regeneration is still unfixed... and they apparently haven't done a thing to nerf the battlerager.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:51 pm

But RC, if they patch the FoTM builds before all the 1337 players farm out the instances, there will be a mass exodus! Who will play the sub fees to keep the servers up then, HM?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:03 pm

Actually identifying the system problems and errataing them would be a sign of professionalism. And it would be a vast improvement over 3e's errata cycle. 3rd edition errata is fucking garbage, and people just don't use it. Instead of fixing problems or even adjusting typos for secondary printings, it's just a rant document where people slip in nonsensical house rules. They don't even adjust the stuff like how the PHB and the Monster Manual have severely different definitions of spell-like ability.

Let's go through the PHB errata for 3.5:

Change the type of druid animal companions from Magical Beast [Augmented Animal] to Animal (with a rule in the MM that still says they become Magical Beasts with the augmented animal subtype). To add insult to injury, they were already affected by all the bullshit animal buffs because of the augmented animal subtype.
verdict: Pointless, incomplete, contradictory.
Wild Shape: See Polymorph
Verdict: VERY BAD!
Thousand Faces: See Polymorph. Also took a minor ability and broke it in half.
Verdict: VERY BAD!
Add's a variable spell level to the Paladin's special mount.
Verdict: Pointless, incomplete.
Puts the sap back in to the Rogue's proficiency list after it got accidentally deleted in the 3e -> 3.5 change. And by accidentally, I mean "retardedly" because Andy Collins has removed the sap from Rogue proficiencies three times, so it' obviously not an accident.
Verdict: Good, but insufficient.
Reverses the sign on a typographical error in the Listen DC table. This is fine, but the Diplomacy and Sleight of Hand tables are still fucked up.
Verdict: Good, but insufficient.
Changes the Run feat description to match the other PHB references. Still does not explain interaction with mounted or flying movement.
Verdict: Good, but insufficient.
Overrun deleted for no fucking reason. Sorry, because Andy Collins is a petulant jackass and fighters can't have nice things. Ride by Attack formally made useless by this change, no net benefit to the game.
Verdict: VERY BAD!
More charge raping.
Verdict: Very Bad!
More fucking of Overrun's corpse.
Verdict: Very Bad!
Animal Shapes: See Polymorph.
Verdict: VERY BAD!
Baleful Polymorph: See Polymorph.
Verdict: VERY BAD!
Blasphemy is changed from one incredibly incomprehensible writeup of its range and effect to another. If it's a personal emanation, don't give it a god damned range, that's confusing and fucked up.
Verdict: Meaningless.
Chaos Hammer has its effect changed so that it references another spell instead of being self contained. This is not helpful at all.
Verdict: Meaningless.
Darkvision has a meaningless typgraphical error fixed. Still didn't fix the error on any later printings.
Verdict: Good, insufficient.
Dispel Magic slightly and meaninglessly nerfed. Actually not a big deal, because Area Dispel sucks anyway.
Verdict: Slightly unfortunate.
Nerf to Divine Favor. But it only takes effect when the characters are high enough level that it doesn't really matter. Very mysterious.
Verdict: Meaningless.
Glibness is changed from something that is clear and largely irrelevant to something which is incomprehensible ut stil thankfully irrelevant.
Verdict Slightly bad.
Polymorph Any Object: see Polymorph
Verdict: VERY BAD!
Nerf to Righteous Might. I don't even care because no one casts Righteous Might.
Verdict: Meaningless.
Slight improvement to Scry,making Scy and Die a little bit better.
Verdict: Don't even care.
Shapechange: See Polymorph
Verdict: VERY BAD!
Spellturning's example is changed. It's not rulestext, so it doesn't actually do anything.
Verdict: Meanngless.
Stone Shape is errataed to be the same level for Wizards as for Clerics. If only they would do that for all the other spells.
Verdict:Good, insufficient.
Transport Via Plants is a Druid Spell with no save DC. It was changed from one school to another school. While it is more appropriate in Conjuration, I frankly can't think of a single thing that actually changes because of that.

Now, a lot of that has to do wth juggling Polymorph effects. The Polymorph erratas here are incomplete, and the "complete" ones are also not complete (in that they reference these fiddly bits as well as the original rules text) and are in a completely separate document. They also put up sets of 7 layer inheritance (or more, I get lost). And despite being totally incomprehensible and requiring people to dive through multiple levels of redactions and reintroductions, the fact is that the end result is still incredibly broken as fuck. The Polymorph errata is completely insulting on every level, and woefully incomplete portions of it are like half this document.

The end result is that this errata is an insult. It's too little, it's too late, it's contradictory, it' incompetent, and it's not even errata because they never changed the text in the later printings of the books to conform with the errata text. If 4e was going to turn over a new leaf and not do that kind of insultingly insufficient bullshit, that would be great.

Of course, instead we got the skill challenge revisions. Replacing one thing that doesn't work with another thing that... doesn't work. Fuck that. Same old shit really. Just faster.

-Username17

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:06 pm

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with Righteous Might? Even if the ability score enhancements don't stack with Divine Power, it's still giving you Con, AC (as of debatable use as that is), DR, and reach.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:17 pm

Blicero wrote:I'm sorry, but what's wrong with Righteous Might? Even if the ability score enhancements don't stack with Divine Power, it's still giving you Con, AC (as of debatable use as that is), DR, and reach.

It doesn't stack with Enlarge Person, Polymorph, or Giant Size. All of which are much better spells.

-Username17

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:18 pm

Roy wrote:But RC, if they patch the FoTM builds before all the 1337 players farm out the instances, there will be a mass exodus! Who will play the sub fees to keep the servers up then, HM?

The sick thing is that DDI actually charged people with fucking subscription fees...

At least for 3.5 you could say that nobody was paying them monthly fees after the books were released, 4E can't even make that claim.

Though really both games have the same quality of errata. I mean seriously, probably 3.5 didn't even need to exist, it could have been solved by a 3.0 errata document.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:50 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
Roy wrote:But RC, if they patch the FoTM builds before all the 1337 players farm out the instances, there will be a mass exodus! Who will play the sub fees to keep the servers up then, HM?
The sick thing is that DDI actually charged people with fucking subscription fees...

At least for 3.5 you could say that nobody was paying them monthly fees after the books were released, 4E can't even make that claim.

Though really both games have the same quality of errata. I mean seriously, probably 3.5 didn't even need to exist, it could have been solved by a 3.0 errata document.

While true, the 'everything is core' model amounts to the same thing.

Playing along the lines of 4.Fail providing more entertainment by playing with the packaging than actually using the product I'm half tempted to do some public satire, where some people play 4.Fail and intentionally emphasize the heavy MMO elements and general bullshit. And then post the log somewhere for the lulz. That's about the only way I could be convinced to touch that drivel.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:42 am

Roy wrote: I'm half tempted to do some public satire, where some people play 4.Fail and intentionally emphasize the heavy MMO elements and general bullshit. And then post the log somewhere for the lulz.

Sounds interesting. Would read it.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:37 am

It's poretty inevitable that games lose traction when the sequel comes out.

Consider call of duty 4. It was pretty good, had competitive momentum, etc. Not perfect, but hey. Then CoD 5 game out. Despite being unplayable competitively and generally ho-hum, the bottom fell out of the CoD4 community, because people went to 5, discovered it was crap and then... went elsewhere.

It's a situation that is actually pretty parallel.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:47 am

Korwin wrote:
Roy wrote: I'm half tempted to do some public satire, where some people play 4.Fail and intentionally emphasize the heavy MMO elements and general bullshit. And then post the log somewhere for the lulz.
Sounds interesting. Would read it.

Would need five other people to make that happen. A DM and four players.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:27 am

Player: Dude, I totally use magic missile again!
DM: The monster dies.
Player: SWEET I TOTALLY PWNED THAT BITCH HARDCORE WHAT'S XP AND LOOT FOR THAT FUCKER

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:36 am

Psychic Robot wrote:Player: Dude, I totally use magic missile again!
DM: The monster dies.
Player: SWEET I TOTALLY PWNED THAT BITCH HARDCORE WHAT'S XP AND LOOT FOR THAT FUCKER

Player: Need before greed!
Player: Fuck that, where's mah phat lewtz!

So are you volunteering PR?

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:59 pm

Flumph · Post by **Flumph** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:00 am

Kaelik wrote:Meh, personally, I don't see anyone playing 4e, only arguing about it. That's fine for me. I'd rather play 3e and argue about 4e then the other way around, or both about one.

I don't know of a single group around here that plays 4e regularly. Within a twenty minute drive I know of a handful of continuing 3.x games, some Pathfinder groups, a couple of C&C campaigns, some decrepit old 1e coots, a few old WoD groups and, of course, my own weekly M&M campaign. The only 4e games I hear about are on the internet.

I'd say that 4e's failure to gain traction is more telling then any traction lost by 3.x.

DMReckless · Post by **DMReckless** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:08 am

You've really got to assign console buttons to all of your abilities.

I'm going to... square, circle, triangle, then L1 the monster.

Just look really bored and declare "Square" and roll the die.

etc.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:18 am

All the games in my circles switched systems - either Shadowrun or other; or 4e. But in some perverse way, all the 4e campaigns were the same exact campaign. The same arguments, the same NPCs, the same problems in every groups. It was kinda disgusting, in some sort of incest way.

Then people started talking about making 4e campaign worlds of their own, and I was left thinking... 'How is that 4e at that point? You're not even given tools to make anything new. It's less detailed than Nethack.'

-Crissa

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:43 am

Well, since 4e rules barely touch on anything that goes on outside the dungeon, a new setting only really requires changing some fluff.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:59 am

DMReckless wrote:You've really got to assign console buttons to all of your abilities.

I'm going to... square, circle, triangle, then L1 the monster.

Just look really bored and declare "Square" and roll the die.

etc.

The playstation is a good system. Don't insult it like that.

What buttons are on an xbox controller again?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:36 pm

Apparently people who really like Forgotten Realms despise what they did to the campaign setting for 4E? I can't imagine fans of that setting wanting to switch over.

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:40 pm

I don't like FR very much (totally disconnected from mechanics, writers have no sense of scale, etc, etc, all the usual flaws, but turned to eleven), but its previous versions had their charm and their strong points. Lore accumulated through several editions and the Byzantine web of secret wars between sinister organizations and ancient conspiracies, for example. 4E version doesn't. The changes weren't radical enough to really solve any of the setting problems (an overbloated pantheon, for example), except that lowering of overall power level made the gap between mechanics and the fluff much narrower. But they were radical enough (much more radical than the Time of Troubles) to completly fuck up the sense of continuity and invalidate the old lore. Moreover, they, as a part of transition to 4E or shortly before that, have demolished most villain factions that were genuinely cool and semi-original, like Cult of the Dragon, Zhentarim or 3.X version of Red Wizards, so that their remnants barely resemble the originals. The replacement was Shades, i.e., the stereotypical evil empire, now with 150% more overpowered NPCs. This alone unsold me on the new version, as interesting antagonists is the most important part of the setting for me. In short, I no longer see any reason to use FR.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:22 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Apparently people who really like Forgotten Realms despise what they did to the campaign setting for 4E? I can't imagine fans of that setting wanting to switch over.

I know several Forgotten Realms fans that play 4E -- just not using the Forgotten Realms setting.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:41 am

Hey, my group just switched our 4e campaign from 4e to 3.5. Converted our characters and everything. The universal consensus is that 3.5 is better. Sure, it's just one group, but I saw similar stories on the WoTC boards.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:54 pm

I am thoroughly surprised at this. To be honest, if I had cut my teeth on 4e, I wouldn't want to switch back to the overcomplicated mess that is 3e.